google_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully describes behavior: returns titles, URLs, snippets, and supports filters like time range, site, language, and region. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a search tool it is sufficiently transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, sample prompts, and parameter descriptions. It is comprehensive but slightly verbose with 7 sample prompts; however, they add value and the overall length is justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers each parameter with examples and allowed values, explains the output format, and includes sample prompts. An output schema exists but isn't shown; the description nonetheless provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including defaults, allowed values (e.g., time_range options), and examples (e.g., site). This goes well beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults, giving the agent clear guidance on usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Google and return results with titles, URLs, and snippets.' It provides specific verb and resource, and the sample prompts show various use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_images or google_maps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes sample prompts that indicate typical use cases (e.g., searching for web frameworks, Reddit discussions, recent news). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.